In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 06/01/2005
at 07:57 AM, Bill Fairchild <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>You're the one with all the documentation that you trust after
>verifying. I hope you'll let me stop guessing and tell me what
>IBM's books call it.
Most messages contain words with their plain English usage, including
ours. The word "fake" isn't a technical term, AFAIK.
>I would call it a "block size",
Then you world be wrong.
since it is the size of the block.
No. To get the block size you'd have to subtract it from DCBBLKSI.
>OTOH, the PoOps gives a precise definition of "residual count",
>which has meaning for all device types and not just DASD,
PoOps is talking about data returned in the CSW, not about data
derived from some other source.
>I explained that, but you weren't paying attention.
I was; you still aren't (see above, where you confused residula count
with block size.)
>I said I had forgotten.
Indeed, and didn't bother to refresh your memory before making
dogmatic statements.
>I don't always remember everything forever once I become aware of
>it.
Nor do you always check yourt facts once it's pointed out to you.
>I'm sorry, but further experiments are not very interesting, now
>that I know what my main mistake(s) was(were). It appears that
>you already know what happens.
And water is wet; I've repeatedly pointed that out, and repeatedly
suggested that you look at the actual CCW chains that SAM uses.
>Perhaps you could simply reveal the answer,
There is no "the answer"; SAM uses a lot of different channel
programs, depending on options and releases.
>along with my requested explanation for why you did not use the
>secret words "Read Data >CCW"
Because I used the magic words "look at the CCW chain in storage",
which would have given you the answer for the particular options and
releasde that you were using. Now perhaps you can explain why you
couldn't be bothered to do that.
>In fact, I even put it in the subject
>line so you would be sure to see it.
Since you had repeatedly ignored my request to look in storage, I
considered your request to be hypocritical.
>Weren't you paying attention?
I was; you weren't and still aren't (see above.)
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
